How the bastards do it

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/18/2012 11:27 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:

Trevor Wilson<trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 6/18/2012 6:22 PM, Gordon Levi wrote:
kreed<kenreed1999@gmail.com> wrote:



**Why? The science tells us that AGW is a problem. Religious leaders,
some politicians, talk-back radio hosts and morons claim the science is
wrong.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/575657_4175087660985_1358175659_n.jpg

Note the typical symbols of the AGW "skeptics". Can you explain why
all climate conservatives are also right-wing political conservatives?

**Turnbull isn't.

Can't think of any others.

Oh wait: Yes I can Margaret Thatcher. She has been known to call deniers
complete idiots.

I did not claim that all political conservatives were climate
conservatives. Most political conservatives can look at an issue that
requires social change and formulate a policy that takes heed of their
scientific advisors rather than accusing them of being part of a
global socialist conspiracy. On the other hand, I have never come
across a climate conservative that was not a political conservative.
They also tend to come from the right-wing of the conservatives.

**Quite so. Sorry for my mis-reading of your words. I wonder why so many
conservatives understand so little about science?

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On 18/06/12 20:23, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**I take it that you are aware that by 2013 or 2014, solar PV power will
be cheaper than coal generated power?

ROFL.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/19/2012 8:10 AM, terryc wrote:

On 18/06/12 20:23, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**I take it that you are aware that by 2013 or 2014, solar PV power will
be cheaper than coal generated power?

ROFL.

** ROFL, indeed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#Power_stations

"As of 2011, the cost of PV has fallen well below that of nuclear power
and is set to fall further. The average retail price of solar cells as
monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over
the course of 2011.[43]


For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt were achieved. A
module price of 0.60 Euro/watt (0.78 $/watt) was published for a large
scale 5-year deal in April 2012. [44] In some locations, PV has reached
grid parity, which is usually defined as PV production costs at or below
retail electricity prices (though often still above the power station
prices for coal or gas-fired generation without their distribution and
other costs). Photovoltaic power is also generated during a time of day
that is close to peak demand (precedes it) in electricity systems with
high use of air conditioning. More generally, it is now evident that,
given a carbon price of $50/ton, which would raise the price of
coal-fired power by 5c/kWh, solar PV will be cost-competitive in most
locations. The declining price of PV has been reflected in rapidly
growing installations, totaling about 23 GW in 2011. Although some
consolidation is likely in 2012, due to support cuts in the large
markets of Germany and Italy, strong growth seems likely to continue for
the rest of the decade. Already, by one estimate, total investment in
renewables for 2011 exceeded investment in carbon-based electricity
generation.[43]"


And:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/solar-energy-cost-hits-par-with-coal-fuel-20110817-1iybc.html






--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/19/2012 8:45 AM, kreed wrote:

On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:10:55 AM UTC+10, terryc wrote:
On 18/06/12 20:23, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**I take it that you are aware that by 2013 or 2014, solar PV power will
be cheaper than coal generated power?

ROFL.


When they get it to produce power at night, it might make a difference

**Fortunately, that problem has already been dealt with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_power

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/19/2012 8:56 AM, kreed wrote:

On Monday, June 18, 2012 6:43:17 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/18/2012 2:21 AM, terryc wrote:
On 17/06/12 14:32, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2012 1:35 PM, terryc wrote:
On 17/06/12 12:00, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Correct. I do not. Science does. Science demands evidence.

And the "evidence" that AGW is presenting is a manufactured evidence
endorsed by a beaucratic body.

**Is that so? Which beaucratic body instructed Fourier to first advance
the theory?
tic>Probably the same one that instructed Cupernicus to say the sun
revolved around the earth,/tic


Scientists, in the main, simply report the facts. Regardless of the
consequences and who pays their wages.

What a naieve little bunny you are.
Forgotten the CSIRO Meat diet?

**Nope. And I have not forgotten these things either:

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Safeguarding-Australia/Emergency-detection-and-response/Achievements.aspx

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/ICT-and-Services/People-and-businesses/wireless-LANs.aspx

Along with the thousands of significant developments from a bunch of
very smart guys.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au


Taking a look, most are to control, spy on the public, or otherwise to be used against them.

**I take it, then, that you don't use RF networking for your computer?

That said: The achievements of CSIRO have been far reaching and
considerable. Those who seek to belittle CSIRO are nothing but morons.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

**I take it, then, that you don't use RF networking for your computer?

Correct, it is a security risk.

That said: The achievements of CSIRO have been far reaching and
considerable. Those who seek to belittle CSIRO are nothing but morons.

Like twice letting viri escape from their research island and thus
rendering it far less effective.

Like defining a "treatment"as safe so long as it does not affect
commercial crops/livstock and bugger the rest f our native
plants/animals/etc.

>

 

[terryc]

On 19/06/12 08:41, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/19/2012 8:10 AM, terryc wrote:
On 18/06/12 20:23, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**I take it that you are aware that by 2013 or 2014, solar PV power will
be cheaper than coal generated power?

ROFL.

** ROFL, indeed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#Power_stations

Oh dear, the "authority" of wikipedia is omnipotent.

"As of 2011, the cost of PV has fallen well below that of nuclear power
and is set to fall further. The average retail price of solar cells as
monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over
the course of 2011.[43]

Lol, the wholesale price of chinese crap.

 

[kreed]

On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:10:55 AM UTC+10, terryc wrote:

On 18/06/12 20:23, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**I take it that you are aware that by 2013 or 2014, solar PV power will
be cheaper than coal generated power?

ROFL.

When they get it to produce power at night, it might make a difference

 

[kreed]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 6:43:17 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/18/2012 2:21 AM, terryc wrote:
On 17/06/12 14:32, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2012 1:35 PM, terryc wrote:
On 17/06/12 12:00, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Correct. I do not. Science does. Science demands evidence.

And the "evidence" that AGW is presenting is a manufactured evidence
endorsed by a beaucratic body.

**Is that so? Which beaucratic body instructed Fourier to first advance
the theory?
tic>Probably the same one that instructed Cupernicus to say the sun
revolved around the earth,/tic


Scientists, in the main, simply report the facts. Regardless of the
consequences and who pays their wages.

What a naieve little bunny you are.
Forgotten the CSIRO Meat diet?

**Nope. And I have not forgotten these things either:

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Safeguarding-Australia/Emergency-detection-and-response/Achievements.aspx

http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/ICT-and-Services/People-and-businesses/wireless-LANs.aspx

Along with the thousands of significant developments from a bunch of
very smart guys.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Taking a look, most are to control, spy on the public, or otherwise to be used against them.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/19/2012 10:40 AM, terryc wrote:

**I take it, then, that you don't use RF networking for your computer?

Correct, it is a security risk.

That said: The achievements of CSIRO have been far reaching and
considerable. Those who seek to belittle CSIRO are nothing but morons.

Like twice letting viri escape from their research island and thus
rendering it far less effective.

**Accidents will happen in even the best run organisations. Remind me:
How many accidents have we seen from Orica in the past few years?

In any case, the failure of a containment system says nothing about the
brilliance of the science that is conducted at CSIRO.

Like defining a "treatment"as safe so long as it does not affect
commercial crops/livstock and bugger the rest f our native
plants/animals/etc.

**That would be your strawman. We're discussing how many extraordinary
developments have come form CSIRO.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/19/2012 10:42 AM, terryc wrote:

On 19/06/12 08:41, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/19/2012 8:10 AM, terryc wrote:
On 18/06/12 20:23, Trevor Wilson wrote:


**I take it that you are aware that by 2013 or 2014, solar PV power
will
be cheaper than coal generated power?

ROFL.

** ROFL, indeed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics#Power_stations

Oh dear, the "authority" of wikipedia is omnipotent.

**Not at all. Wikipedia can offer some very impressive information
though. Feel free to provide your information that disproves my source.
I'll wait.

"As of 2011, the cost of PV has fallen well below that of nuclear power
and is set to fall further. The average retail price of solar cells as
monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over
the course of 2011.[43]

Lol, the wholesale price of chinese crap.

**Nonetheless, the cost is rapidly falling. Just as the quality is
improving. Disregarding Chinese PV cells is not unlike disregarding
Japanese electronics and automobiles back in the 1960s.


--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[terryc]

On 19/06/12 12:09, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/19/2012 10:40 AM, terryc wrote:

**I take it, then, that you don't use RF networking for your computer?

Correct, it is a security risk.

That said: The achievements of CSIRO have been far reaching and
considerable. Those who seek to belittle CSIRO are nothing but morons.

Like twice letting viri escape from their research island and thus
rendering it far less effective.

**Accidents will happen in even the best run organisations. Remind me:
How many accidents have we seen from Orica in the past few years?

In any case, the failure of a containment system says nothing about the
brilliance of the science that is conducted at CSIRO.

Brilliant? exactly what science was involved in the RF stuff?
Hint, it was almost all engineering. Tesla did the science over a
century ago.

Like defining a "treatment"as safe so long as it does not affect
commercial crops/livstock and bugger the rest f our native
plants/animals/etc.

**That would be your strawman. We're discussing how many extraordinary
developments have come form CSIRO.

Lol, no, that is YOUR strawman otherwise it would be like discussing the
wonderful range of chemicals provided by Orica for modern life without
also considerng the leaks, spills and mass pollution around Botany Bay.

 

[terryc]

On 19/06/12 12:12, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/19/2012 10:42 AM, terryc wrote:
On 19/06/12 08:41, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Not at all. Wikipedia can offer some very impressive information
though.

Yep, any fool can post stuff.

"As of 2011, the cost of PV has fallen well below that of nuclear power
and is set to fall further. The average retail price of solar cells as
monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over
the course of 2011.[43]

Lol, the wholesale price of chinese crap.

**Nonetheless, the cost is rapidly falling.

Where are the new factories that will continue this price drop?
Where is the "free market" economics that fuels the demand?

 

[kreed]

On Monday, June 18, 2012 8:02:35 PM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/18/2012 6:08 PM, kreed wrote:
On Monday, June 18, 2012 5:41:02 PM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/18/2012 3:00 PM, kreed wrote:


**Why? The science tells us that AGW is a problem. Religious
leaders, some politicians, talk-back radio hosts and morons
claim the science is wrong.

-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/575657_4175087660985_1358175659_n.jpg



**Your point being? That unscientific morons can commission a web site?
That's nothing new.

Try reading this:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html



I understand Trevor, and thank you for showing us how rabid morons
can commission a web site. The IPPC is a perfect example of such a
site .

**Of course you have no idea of the site. It contains far too much
science for you. You prefer your AGW information in bite-sized, Nazi
slogan chunks.

Im, I don't want Nazi propaganda, that's why I don't go to sites like you
quoted, that are funded by the same groups that funded the nazis, and much
of the other evil we have suffered.

I also don't want your religion and its paid high priests.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Tirelessly working to re-format your stupid posts so we can read them.
Please sort out your newsreader.

 

[kreed]

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:17:59 PM UTC+10, F Murtz wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 10:04 AM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 12:44 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
atec77<"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:


You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself
has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

How could TW's "formal qualifications" or those of anybody else who is
likely to post here affect their credibility on the subject of AGW?

**atec77 failed to complete any high school education. Such subtleties
are lost on him.

I note that none of the morons have challenged a single part of the
science relating to AGW. They, instead, prefer to insult and demean.

why on earth would any one post a challenge here as it would be wrong if
it did not agree with the doctrine according to Trevor and the CSIRO

**Points:

* _I_ don't have a doctrine. I merely listen to scientists, not
talk-back radio hosts, politicians or religious leaders.
* The CSIRO backs it's claims with solid science.
* I cited the following organisations (not just CSIRO):
CSIRO
The Australian Academy of Science
BoM
NASA
The US EPA
The US National Academy of Sciences
American Meteorological Society
IPCC
The UK Met
The European Academy of Sciences and Arts
The Royal Society of New Zealand
The Royal Society of the UK
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
European Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

The real question is this:

Why do you steadfastly ignore the science and slavishly listen to the
likes of Alan Jones, Tony Abbott and George Pell?

Why do you persist in stating as fact that which is not fact.
I never listen to Jones and pell (don't like Jones can not be bothered
with pell whoever he is) and only hear Abbot in news grabs.

Its all he has. There is nothing else he can say, Note the repetition.

 

[kreed]

On Sunday, June 17, 2012 2:32:17 PM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:

On 6/17/2012 1:35 PM, terryc wrote:
On 17/06/12 12:00, Trevor Wilson wrote:

**Correct. I do not. Science does. Science demands evidence.

And the "evidence" that AGW is presenting is a manufactured evidence
endorsed by a beaucratic body.

**Is that so? Which beaucratic body instructed Fourier to first advance
the theory?

Which beaucratic body told NASA, the EPA, The US Academy of Sciences to
manufacture data to the AGW denying government of George W Bush (who
paid their salaries)?

The bankster and corporate filth that control most governments (and invaded and bomb ones they dont). You are really serious - you think a government actually gives a damn about you ? tells the truth, or does the right thing ???

Bush turned in the end, and that was predicted in advance. So did Howard, but that was manufactured public pressure. People have woken up a lot since those days

Which beaucratic body told CSIRO, BoM and the Australian Academy of
Science to manufacture data to the AGW denying government of John Howard
and Tony Abbott (who paid their salaries)?


see above

Scientists, in the main, simply report the facts. Regardless of the
consequences and who pays their wages.

according to their paymasters.
LOL to the rest of it. What rubbish, it defies reality.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/19/2012 11:15 PM, kreed wrote:

On Monday, June 18, 2012 8:02:35 PM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/18/2012 6:08 PM, kreed wrote:
On Monday, June 18, 2012 5:41:02 PM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/18/2012 3:00 PM, kreed wrote:


**Why? The science tells us that AGW is a problem. Religious
leaders, some politicians, talk-back radio hosts and morons
claim the science is wrong.

-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/575657_4175087660985_1358175659_n.jpg



**Your point being? That unscientific morons can commission a web site?
That's nothing new.

Try reading this:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html



I understand Trevor, and thank you for showing us how rabid morons
can commission a web site. The IPPC is a perfect example of such a
site .

**Of course you have no idea of the site. It contains far too much
science for you. You prefer your AGW information in bite-sized, Nazi
slogan chunks.



Im, I don't want Nazi propaganda, that's why I don't go to sites like you
quoted, that are funded by the same groups that funded the nazis, and much
of the other evil we have suffered.

**Huh? The UN is funded by it's member nations. IOW: Everyone on the
planet. I note your continued aversion to science. Sad.

I also don't want your religion and its paid high priests.

**YOU are placing your faith in politicians, talk-back radio hosts and
religious nutters. I'm gonna go with the scientists.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Tirelessly working to re-format your stupid posts so we can read them.
Please sort out your newsreader.

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/20/2012 12:00 AM, kreed wrote:

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:17:59 PM UTC+10, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 10:04 AM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 12:44 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
atec77<"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:


You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself
has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

How could TW's "formal qualifications" or those of anybody else who is
likely to post here affect their credibility on the subject of AGW?

**atec77 failed to complete any high school education. Such subtleties
are lost on him.

I note that none of the morons have challenged a single part of the
science relating to AGW. They, instead, prefer to insult and demean.

why on earth would any one post a challenge here as it would be wrong if
it did not agree with the doctrine according to Trevor and the CSIRO

**Points:

* _I_ don't have a doctrine. I merely listen to scientists, not
talk-back radio hosts, politicians or religious leaders.
* The CSIRO backs it's claims with solid science.
* I cited the following organisations (not just CSIRO):
CSIRO
The Australian Academy of Science
BoM
NASA
The US EPA
The US National Academy of Sciences
American Meteorological Society
IPCC
The UK Met
The European Academy of Sciences and Arts
The Royal Society of New Zealand
The Royal Society of the UK
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
European Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

The real question is this:

Why do you steadfastly ignore the science and slavishly listen to the
likes of Alan Jones, Tony Abbott and George Pell?

Why do you persist in stating as fact that which is not fact.
I never listen to Jones and pell (don't like Jones can not be bothered
with pell whoever he is) and only hear Abbot in news grabs.


Its all he has. There is nothing else he can say, Note the repetition.

**Indeed. ALL I have is the overwhelming and utterly irrefutable bulk of
good, solid science. You, OTOH, have all those politicians, talk-back
radio hosts and religious nutters. Those guys always tell the truth.

NOT!

Yikes!

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 6/20/2012 9:39 AM, kreed wrote:

On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:29:32 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/20/2012 12:00 AM, kreed wrote:
On Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:17:59 PM UTC+10, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 10:04 AM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 12:44 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
atec77<"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:


You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications
he himself has to make such royal pontification on
the matters

How could TW's "formal qualifications" or those of
anybody else who is likely to post here affect their
credibility on the subject of AGW?

**atec77 failed to complete any high school education.
Such subtleties are lost on him.

I note that none of the morons have challenged a single
part of the science relating to AGW. They, instead,
prefer to insult and demean.

why on earth would any one post a challenge here as it
would be wrong if it did not agree with the doctrine
according to Trevor and the CSIRO

**Points:

* _I_ don't have a doctrine. I merely listen to scientists,
not talk-back radio hosts, politicians or religious leaders.
* The CSIRO backs it's claims with solid science. * I cited
the following organisations (not just CSIRO): CSIRO The
Australian Academy of Science BoM NASA The US EPA The US
National Academy of Sciences American Meteorological Society
IPCC The UK Met The European Academy of Sciences and Arts The
Royal Society of New Zealand The Royal Society of the UK
American Association for the Advancement of Science American
Chemical Society American Institute of Physics American
Physical Society Australian Institute of Physics European
Physical Society European Foundation Federation of Australian
Scientific and Technological Societies

The real question is this:

Why do you steadfastly ignore the science and slavishly
listen to the likes of Alan Jones, Tony Abbott and George
Pell?

Why do you persist in stating as fact that which is not fact. I
never listen to Jones and pell (don't like Jones can not be
bothered with pell whoever he is) and only hear Abbot in news
grabs.


Its all he has. There is nothing else he can say, Note the
repetition.

**Indeed. ALL I have is the overwhelming and utterly irrefutable
bulk of good, solid science. You, OTOH, have all those politicians,
talk-back radio hosts and religious nutters. Those guys always tell
the truth.

NOT!

Yikes!

-- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au


I don't listen to Alan Jones, he is not broadcast where I live. We
don't have a radio or TV at the workplace. If it really turns you on,
I will try and download some of his stuff if possible and give an
opinion.

**You share his views. You, like him, reject good, solid science. Be
ashamed.

Politicians, I think they are a crock of shit, especially Julia
Gillard I doubt very much that Im alone or in the minority in that
opinion. I would not take them at their word, Gillard has proven
this in spades to the public in the last 2 years.

**Like I said: You listen to politicians. Politicians are not
scientists. They know nothing about climatology.

I practially never watch TV (unless Im in someone else's place, or a
public place where it is on and I cannot avoid it, I usually don't
listen to radio unless under the circumstances above. These days I
prefer silence, rather than listening to people trying to sell me
crap I don't need, and music that seems such rubbish these days.

**And you don't read science. That much we all know.

As for Abbott I can't stand the man, but am faced with little choice
but to vote for him, as we need to be rid of this carbon tax, and
Gillard especially if Australia is to get anywhere. For alternatives
Labor and greens are out, and after seeing Oakshott, wilkie et al
sell us out, and shit all over public opinion on carbon, I wouldnt
trust independents, so who do I vote for ? Tell me that.

**This is not about voting. This is about you continued display of
scientific ignorance. Something you share with Alan Jones, George Pell,
talk-back radio hosts and politicians.

As for the papers, same. They are useless for real info

**And, it seems, scientific literature. You've neglected to add that you
don't read it either.

I do not listen to Pell, I would not know who he was even if I saw
him on TV.

**Like I said: You share his views on science. Feel proud?



--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au

Tirelessly working to repair your innane and badly formatted posts. Fix
your fucking newsreader.

 

[F Murtz]

kreed wrote:

On Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:29:32 AM UTC+10, Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/20/2012 12:00 AM, kreed wrote:
On Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:17:59 PM UTC+10, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 10:04 AM, F Murtz wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
On 6/16/2012 12:44 AM, Gordon Levi wrote:
atec77<"atec77 "@hotmail.com> wrote:


You notice he wont tell us what formal qualifications he himself
has to
make such royal pontification on the matters

How could TW's "formal qualifications" or those of anybody else who is
likely to post here affect their credibility on the subject of AGW?

**atec77 failed to complete any high school education. Such subtleties
are lost on him.

I note that none of the morons have challenged a single part of the
science relating to AGW. They, instead, prefer to insult and demean.

why on earth would any one post a challenge here as it would be wrong if
it did not agree with the doctrine according to Trevor and the CSIRO

**Points:

* _I_ don't have a doctrine. I merely listen to scientists, not
talk-back radio hosts, politicians or religious leaders.
* The CSIRO backs it's claims with solid science.
* I cited the following organisations (not just CSIRO):
CSIRO
The Australian Academy of Science
BoM
NASA
The US EPA
The US National Academy of Sciences
American Meteorological Society
IPCC
The UK Met
The European Academy of Sciences and Arts
The Royal Society of New Zealand
The Royal Society of the UK
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
European Physical Society
European Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

The real question is this:

Why do you steadfastly ignore the science and slavishly listen to the
likes of Alan Jones, Tony Abbott and George Pell?

Why do you persist in stating as fact that which is not fact.
I never listen to Jones and pell (don't like Jones can not be bothered
with pell whoever he is) and only hear Abbot in news grabs.


Its all he has. There is nothing else he can say, Note the repetition.

**Indeed. ALL I have is the overwhelming and utterly irrefutable bulk of
good, solid science. You, OTOH, have all those politicians, talk-back
radio hosts and religious nutters. Those guys always tell the truth.

NOT!

Yikes!

--
Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au


I don't listen to Alan Jones, he is not broadcast where I live. We don't have a radio or TV at the workplace. If it really turns you on, I will try and download some of his stuff if possible and give an opinion.


Politicians, I think they are a crock of shit, especially Julia Gillard
I doubt very much that Im alone or in the minority in that opinion. I would not take them at their word, Gillard has proven this in spades to the public in the last 2 years.

I practially never watch TV (unless Im in someone else's place, or a public place where it is on and I cannot avoid it, I usually don't listen to radio unless under the circumstances above. These days I prefer silence, rather than listening to people trying to sell me crap I don't need, and music that seems such rubbish these days.

As for Abbott I can't stand the man, but am faced with little choice but to vote for him, as we need to be rid of this carbon tax, and Gillard especially if Australia is to get anywhere. For alternatives Labor and greens are out, and after seeing Oakshott, wilkie et al sell us out, and shit all over public opinion on carbon, I wouldnt trust independents, so who do I vote for ? Tell me that.


As for the papers, same. They are useless for real info



I do not listen to Pell, I would not know who he was even if I saw him on TV.

The shooters party.